Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development entitled “A Global Fight: Supporting Efforts to Address Sex Trafficking in South Asia”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of duty and urgency that I rise in the House to table my bill which would repeal paragraph 38(1)(c) of the IRPA.

Canada is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Paragraph 38(1)(c) directly contravenes this convention, allowing Canada's immigration system to discriminate against individuals with disabilities on the mere assumption an individual could pose an excessive burden on Canada's health or social services.

Following national media attention, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration studied this provision. It was made clear by witnesses, government members, and even the minister himself that this policy is out of step with Canadian values.

For two years, the minister has been consulting on this policy and has failed to act. Meanwhile, families like those of Monica Mateo and Marilyn Cruzet continue to suffer and wonder if their families will ever be reunited despite their contributions to this country by caring for our seniors and children. It is simply unacceptable. Full repeal is the only option to go forward.

I call on the government to adopt my bill as its own and take immediate action on this urgent issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present three petitions to the House today, the first being on palliative care.

The petitioners acknowledge that 70% of Canadian residents that need end-of-life palliative care do not have access to it. They are calling on Parliament to support Bill C-277 to ensure that every Canadian that needs palliative care has access to it, and that palliative and hospice care do not hasten nor postpone death.

Mr. Speaker, the last petition I wish to present is in regard to impaired driving.

Families for Justice is a group of Canadians who have lost a loved one killed by an impaired driver. The petitioners believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient. They want the Prime Minister to keep his promise of introducing legislation that would make our roads safer.

The petitioners point out that 1,200 Canadians are killed every year by an impaired driver.

I would like to acknowledge Laurie Gourlay, the originator of this petition, who sadly passed away last fall.

This petition acknowledges the Salish Sea as an ecologically, economically, and culturally rich area which provides critical marine habitat biodiversity and essential ecosystems that have as much importance to nature as the peoples, regions, and nations which reside along this unique ocean environment.

Canada has promised to meet its international commitment to honour the United Nations sustainable development goals by protecting 10% of our coastline by 2020 and there is growing momentum.

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I wish to table today is from many people in my riding who support Bill C-262, which happily has passed the House. It it is important to the people in my riding that the bill be fully implemented.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to present a petition from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands who are concerned with the crisis of climate change. They are looking at the tremendous potential of energy efficiency within our homes, reducing waste from inefficient appliances, home design, and insulation. They urge the Government of Canada to work with the provinces to develop a new national building code with the goal of reducing overall energy demand to 15% of what our current built stock consumes.

That the House call on the Prime Minister to apologize to veterans for his insensitive comments at a recent town hall in Edmonton and show veterans the respect that they deserve by fulfilling his campaign promise to them, when he said on August 24, 2015, that “If I earn the right to serve this country as your Prime Minister, no veteran will be forced to fight their own government for the support and compensation they have earned”.

Mr. Speaker, we often find ourselves tasked with debating very complex and difficult subjects in this place. However, we should not complain. After all, what greater honour is there than to be sent here by our fellow citizens to speak on their behalf? We do not always rise to the occasion. We have all been guilty at some point of taking the easy road and reading talking points. We have all been guilty at some point of approaching an issue with partisan blinders on. We have all been guilty at some point of failing to acknowledge the value of an opposing view. As you have pointed out to me personally, Mr. Speaker, on more than one occasion, we have all been guilty of unnecessarily boisterous outbursts. I believe some call it heckling.

Today, we will be debating something far less complex and far more straightforward than what we often do. Today, we are debating whether the Prime Minister should do the honourable thing and apologize to veterans for breaking the promise he made to them.

The wording of the motion is unambiguous. It reads:

That the House call on the Prime Minister to apologize to veterans for his insensitive comments at a recent town hall in Edmonton and show veterans the respect that they deserve by fulfilling his campaign promise to them, when he said on August 24, 2015, that “If I earn the right to serve this country as your Prime Minister, no veteran will be forced to fight their own government for the support and compensation they have earned”.

The facts are clear. The Prime Minister's words were widely reported at the time. No one from the government side disputes that he said these words. In fact, they were repeated at rallies, on social media, and at doorsteps all over the land. It was an election, and promises had to be made. The Liberals might regret that the Prime Minister said these words. They might wish veterans would forget that the Prime Minister said these words. However, the Prime Minister did say these words, and veterans will not forget that he made that promise to them.

I have had the honour of giving voice to the aspirations of my riding of Brantford—Brant for nearly a decade now. Over the course of those years, if I have learned anything, it is that words matter. We should consider the oppressive regimes our valiant warriors have fought against. Nazis burned books, because words matter. The Taliban did the same. It closed schools and went about robbing young women of their ability to read, because words matter. North Korea continues to suppress free speech and the freedom of the press, because words matter.

Some may be thinking what I am doing. Surely I am not comparing the Liberals to Nazis. My hon. colleagues can rest assured that I am not. That might be how others prefer to slur their political opponents. However, that would be a gross injustice to those who suffered under that hideous regime, and I will not do that. I consider the members opposite to be honourable, and I know that they understand the importance of their own words. Canadians of all political persuasions have, for decades, willingly sacrificed everything to fight those oppressive regimes and defend the freedoms we enjoy.

Words matter. We call this place Parliament because it is where we gather as a nation to speak to one another. Canadians take people at their word because words matter. It is not just a quaint custom of a bygone era. Our word is our bond. “Honour” is a word, a word that those in uniform do not just throw around.

If the answers we have been getting during question period are any indication of what we will hear from MPs on the government side today, then, sadly, we can expect a failure to rise to this occasion. I predict that MPs on the government side will be tempted to rise and tell us that all is well. They will be tempted to tell us how grateful all veterans should be.

The Liberals will be tempted to inflate dollar figures and omit that those figures are costed but not funded. They will be tempted to use imaginary examples of veterans and boast about how much that avatar will receive. They will be tempted to rhyme off lists of benefits, some of which are just pre-existing benefits that have been repackaged and renamed. They will be tempted to tell us that the Prime Minister has kept his promise, despite veterans and veterans' advocates saying, very loudly, that they have been betrayed. They will be tempted to ignore the fact that access to benefits has almost ground to a halt. There are 29,000 disability claims in the current backlog.

Without question, the Liberals will be tempted to attack the Conservatives' record in government, and why not? It is easier than taking responsibility for the Prime Minister's words. I hope I am wrong. I hope my hon. colleagues will resist the temptation to shift debate away from the subject at hand. I hope the first speaker on the government side simply rises in his or her place and states that the government supports the motion. I hope that the Prime Minister does not force government MPs to circle the wagons around him and just owns up to his words. We will see.

Again, the question today is a simple one. The question today is whether or not the Prime Minister should do the honourable thing and apologize to veterans for breaking his promise to them.

How did we get here? On August 24, 2015, at a campaign rally in Belleville, Ontario, the Prime Minister, flanked by smiling Liberal candidates, some of them veterans, some of them current government MPs, stated:

If I earn the right to serve this country as your prime minister, no veteran will be forced to fight their own government for the support and compensation that they have earned....

There were no caveats, no wiggle words, just a clear promise to veterans. The Liberal candidates who stood behind him that day clapped and smiled. Those in the audience also clapped. Some were heard cheering loudly. Why would they not? They, along with veterans across the country, were taking the Prime Minister at his word. The Prime Minister for his part paused with a smile and a twinkle of satisfaction in his eye, and basked in the glow of this adulation. It is clear from the videos online that he was quite pleased with himself, and it was clear which veterans he was referencing.

The Equitas Society had taken the previous government to court. That is a fact. There is no sense in pretending otherwise. What is also a fact is that the case was in abeyance when the Prime Minister spoke those words. The plaintiffs and the Conservative government were at the negotiating table and not fighting things out in court. It is also a fact that on May 16, 2016, the abeyance period expired without resolution when the justice minister wrote the B.C. Court of Appeal and stated that, in her view, and we can presume that this was the view of the government and the Prime Minister, the court was now free to deliver judgment.

In other words, the government decided that it would force these veterans to fight their own government. Clearly, this is a promise broken. It is quite simple really. What else could anyone conclude? The Liberals took this decision less than nine months after the Prime Minister made his promise to veterans and, I would add, only six months after being sworn in, making it one of the very first decision the Liberals made.

How sincere was the Prime Minister that day in Belleville? Only he knows. They were his words. It was his bond. All we know for certain is that he has broken his promise. However, here is something else we know. In late 2016, while this group of veterans was being forced to fight the government in court, another group of veterans was bringing forward its case. This new class action case was being brought forward by female veterans who were fighting the government for a safe environment, free from sexual harassment.

Let me repeat that. The Liberal government is currently fighting women who have unselfishly heeded their country's call to service, because these women had the audacity to claim that they deserved to serve their country in a safe environment, free from sexual harassment. To be fair, it was not the government that launched the case, but how did it respond? Did it tell these veterans that their arguments are concerning and invite them to discuss a solution? No. Government lawyers argued that the government is not obligated and does not owe these women, these veterans, a duty of care to provide them with a safe and harassment-free environment.

When this came to light, the Prime Minister was quick to say that he had put justice department lawyers on notice, stating that the argument was of concern to him. He also asked the justice minister, the same justice minister who killed the negotiations with the Equitas Society veterans, to follow up with those lawyers to make sure that they argued things that are consistent with the government's philosophy. Again, these veterans are not being offered an abeyance or negotiations. The Prime Minister is going to keep the case going. He intends to defeat them in court, forcing them to fight their own government. This is a broken promise.

What is the government's philosophy vis-à-vis veterans? Perhaps the Prime Minister's comments to one of our disabled veterans at a recent town hall in Edmonton can shed some light on this.

Why is the government still fighting certain veterans' groups in court? According to the Prime Minister, they are asking for more than we can afford. However, it goes even deeper than that. Yesterday the Prime Minister voted against a private member's bill, sponsored by our colleague, the member for Barrie—Innisfil. The bill sought to ensure that veterans, their families, and survivors would be treated with dignity, respect, and fairness. Is that really more than we can afford?

Veterans and their duties are unique among Canadians. We have an obligation to care for veterans because of the sacrifices made by them. That obligation extends to the experiences of their families. The care, treatment, and transition of Canadian Armed Forces to civil life should be dealt with in a timely manner. Is that really more than we can afford?

The former minister of veterans affairs, the Hon. George Hees, a decorated Second World War veteran himself, was once quoted as saying, “When I was appointed Minister, I told all employees to remember three words: speed, generosity, and courtesy.” That is not a complicated formula: speed, generosity, courtesy. To that list I would add honesty. I think if you ask most veterans they'll tell you that speed, generosity, courtesy, and honesty add up to respect.

Recently in Victoria, I was privileged to join my caucus colleagues and veterans at a veterans round table. These were people who had served and who now advocate for other veterans and assist them in their dealings with Veterans Affairs Canada. We had a fairly lengthy discussion about the issues that they were facing, but the word “respect” was repeated over and over again. At the very end when we were wrapping up, one of the veterans' wives reminded us of that word one more time when she said to us, “If you have heard anything, please remember one word, and that is respect.”

Perhaps it is time to start listening closer to the words of veterans and veterans' advocates. Their words matter.

Don Sorochan, lead counsel for the Equitas Society said, “The position taken by the government was astonishing. For them to stand up and say we don't have any special obligation to veterans was completely contrary to everything they had been saying in Parliament, on the election campaign”.

Mark Campbell, a veteran, a double amputee who lost his legs from the knee down in Afghanistan, and a member of the Minister of Veterans Affairs' very own policy advisory group, said, “The new pension for life is nothing more than a shell game.” Sean Bruyea, another veteran and veterans advocate, said that “the government merely resurrected ghosts of Christmases past with a hodgepodge of benefits that amount to recycled, remodelled and repackaged programs that already exist.”

Another said, “It's fair to say the disappointment (with the new plan) has been immense because it just didn't do the trick.... If you're going to make a promise to provide lifetime pensions, then do it.” Those words were spoken by Brian Forbes, the executive director of War Amps Canada and chairman of the National Council of Veterans Associations of Canada.

For four days now, Colin Saunders, a veteran, has been camped just outside this building to raise awareness for homeless veterans. Today, he has been joined by other veterans as they protest their treatment by Veterans Affairs. He describes his dealings with the current government as “combat”. Let that sink in. He says it is “combat” with a government led by a Prime Minister who promised them they would not have to fight their own government. These are not the words of partisans. These are not the government's political opponents. These are the words of veterans, veterans' spouses, and veterans' advocates. Their only purpose is to ensure veterans are treated with the dignity and respect they have earned.

Let us try to remember that today this is not about comparing records. I ask the government to avoid the temptation to rise and tell us all is well. It is not. Prove me wrong. Resist the temptation to shift debate away from the subject at hand.

Today is about answering a simple question, and that is whether the Prime Minister should do the honourable thing and apologize to veterans for breaking the promise he made to them. On this side, we say he cannot afford not to do so.

Madam Speaker, as I stand to ask a question of the member, I would like to give a shout-out to my local Canadian legions, Branch 112 and Branch 152 in Brooklin and Whitby.

I will agree that we can do better, but when I was canvassing, the veterans in my riding of Whitby asked the government to change the lump sum into a pension for life, which we did. The member opposite said that words matter, but we believe that actions matter even more. When we made the investments in our veterans, when we opened offices, when we decided that we were going to hire new staff in order to expedite, to honour the speed the member opposite talked about, and to make the investments in terms of generosity, we have done that with our actions. We spoke to veterans around the country and honoured the speed, generosity, and respect that he is referring to.

I would ask the hon. member how the previous Harper government honoured speed, generosity, and respect when it made cuts, closed offices, and let the veterans charter wither.

Madam Speaker, the first question in this debate leads to exactly what I had hoped would not happen, which is the loss of focus on the fact of what the Prime Minister did to veterans, particularly Brock Blaszczyk, an amputee in Edmonton who, at a town hall, asked the Prime Minister why he had broken his promise. The Prime Minister looked back at him and said the government is fighting veterans in court because it does not have the money, that there is not enough.

There is enough for the government to do other things, which I am sure will come out in this debate today, but if what we are going to do here today is to honour the dignity and respect that the member says they are showing through their actions, then show it. Why are the veterans not cheering because the government has kept its promise? They are not doing that. They are on the front steps of Parliament today. There will be hundreds of them out there, saying they are having to fight the government for the benefits that they earned—

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Brantford—Brant for tabling this motion today. It is very important that we talk about our failure to deliver services to vets. When I say “our”, I mean as a nation, because everyone has a responsibility to look after our veterans.

We are hearing the Conservatives blaming the Liberals for not fulfilling their promises, and Liberals pointing to the Conservatives' track record of not delivering to veterans. We all have to agree here that we have not done enough. Right now, we have veterans on the steps of Parliament who are suffering. They are falling through the cracks. They are waiting for their claims to be opened. That is not good enough. These are the people and their families who have made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of everyday Canadians.

The motion talks about the Prime Minister's promise. He said, “If I earn the right to serve this country as your Prime Minister, no veteran will be forced to fight their own government for the support and compensation they have earned”. The Prime Minister has not honoured this promise.

Perhaps the member could talk about Mr. Blaszczyk, in Edmonton, and the court case Equitas has launched. It started with the Conservative government, so there has to be an answer from the Conservatives as to why it started there and why they tabled this motion today. There is some responsibility there.

Madam Speaker, as I referred to in my speech, we worked with Equitas to negotiate a settlement to put the lawsuit in abeyance. That was the status at the time of the election campaign.

It was in abeyance for the first six months of this government's regime. It consciously decided, the Minister of Justice decided, to go back to court and not to the negotiating table with the Equitas people. Those are the true facts. No one can dispute them.

On the issue of what really matters here today, what really matters are veterans and their families, who, through the words of the Prime Minister during the campaign and his words in the town hall, have been disrespected. He should do the honourable thing and apologize to veterans.

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary made a comment about actions speaking louder than words. I want to go over some of the actions of the Liberal government.

Instead of helping our veterans, who the Prime Minister told are asking for too much money, here are some of the government's actions: $250,000 wasted on the Prime Minister's trip to billionaire island; $8 million wasted on a hockey rink on Parliament Hill; $10 million for the payout to Omar Khadr; $250 billion to the Chinese communist government for its investment bank to build pipelines in Asia; $15 million in bonuses to staff executives responsible for the Phoenix fiasco; and $33 million in taxpayers' money for Bombardier bonuses.

I would like to ask my colleague if these are the actions the government should be exhibiting, or perhaps the actions should be focusing on our veterans and not on wasting taxpayers' money.

Madam Speaker, my colleague brings up the fact that the government seems to have unlimited funds to do all the things he has mentioned, plus, at the same time, run record deficits in the country. The Prime Minister promised Canadians he would run a modest deficit, but again, it was a broken promise, because it is quadruple, or more, what he promised.

At the town halls and round tables I have done with veterans, in my role as critic, they constantly bring up these comparisons. This is proof of the disrespect shown by the government and the Prime Minister.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of serving in the Canadian Forces for just over three years, and one of the things I took a great deal of pride in was the amount of time I was able to spend with World War II vets on parades and so forth.

No one needs to tell me about a lack of respect for the vets. I appreciate the sacrifices they have made. The government appreciates the sacrifices that have been made. Actions speak louder than words, and there have been many actions in favour of ensuring that there is better compensation. There is always room for improvement.

Would my colleague across the way not recognize that year over year, in terms of Conservative versus Liberal budgets, there are hundreds of millions of dollars more going to veterans today than there were under Stephen Harper.

Madam Speaker, not going into the weeds of comparison between governments, I can say that when the Conservatives were in government, there was a 35% increase in the funding for programs, per veteran, in the years we held the file.

I will not dispute that the Liberal government is putting money into programs. You are, but as the veterans I have quoted today have said, you are not hitting the mark. We have a Prime Minister who stood in front of a veteran, an amputee who lost a leg and has only 20% use of the other one, and told him that the government does not have enough money. That is what we are debating today. It is that lack of respect.

I want to remind the member for Brantford—Brant, who has been around for a long time, that he is to address the questions and comments to the Chair and not to the individuals who are asking the questions in the House.

Sherry RomanadoLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to be here today to talk about something that is near and dear to me, our veterans.

The Government of Canada's support for Canadian Armed Forces members, for veterans, and for their families starts at recruitment, continues throughout their careers, and extends throughout their lives.

We owe an immeasurable debt to our veterans, to the fallen, and to the families who love them.

These words were from our Prime Minister, this November, who went on to say:

Just as our servicemen and women have taken care of us, we must also take care of them. It is our sacred duty as a country to be there for our heroes when they need us most.

Words count, but it is actions that matter most. Our Prime Minister did indeed make several promises to veterans, and to all Canadians, and we have been working hard to deliver on them. Since coming into office, our government has delivered on many commitments made in the campaign and given to the Minister of Veterans Affairs in his mandate letter.

We increased compensation for pain and suffering by increasing the disability award from a maximum of $310,000 to $360,000. We made retroactive payments to 67,000 veterans under the new veterans charter. We increased income replacement from 75% of a veteran's pre-release salary to 90%.

We reopened the nine Veterans Affairs Canada offices that had been closed, thereby restoring veterans' access to services in Corner Brook, Brandon, Sidney, Kelowna, Saskatoon, Charlottetown, Thunder Bay, Windsor, and Prince George. For example, the Kelowna office reopened in 2016, adding eight new front-line employees to improve access to Veterans Affairs Canada services for veterans and their families in the province. The new office serves some 3,500 veterans and enables approximately 100 veterans to meet with their case manager in person. We also opened a new office in Surrey. It serves about 7,500 veterans and enables some 206 veterans to meet with their case manager in person.

We created a brand new education benefit that will give up to $80,000 to Canadian Armed Forces members to go back to school once they have served a certain number of years. We are investing in families by expanding access to all 32 military family resource centres. I have had the great pleasure of visiting a dozen of them across this country.

As the proud mother of two Canadian Armed Forces members, I am grateful that these resources are there for them. In two years we have implemented many of the changes veterans asked for.

The member for Barrie—Innisfil said it best when he said, “The previous government had lost and had become disconnected with veterans, lost a lot of the trust.” He called it a fair criticism, and I will take him at his word.

Re-establish lifelong pensions as an option for our injured Veterans, while ensuring that every injured Veteran has access to financial advice and support so that they can determine the form of compensation that works best for them and their families.

We did this.

The pension for life is based on three pillars. The first is a monthly tax-free payment for life up to a maximum of $1,150 per month to recognize pain and suffering. Veterans experiencing severe barriers to returning to civilian life could be eligible for the second pillar, which is the additional pain and suffering compensation, to a maximum of $1,500 a month, tax free, for life. This equals $2,650, tax free, for life. The third pillar is income replacement, where we streamlined economic benefits, to make them more accessible, into a monthly payment of 90% of a veteran's pre-release salary.

We understand that this can sound complicated and abstract, but let us take, for example, a corporal who served six years in the Canadian Armed Forces and suffered a 100% disability. She would now be entitled to nearly $6,000 a month in benefits. This veteran could also be eligible for nearly $72,000 through the critical injury benefit, $40,000 to go back to school, and additional finances to modify her vehicle and home to meet her needs. On top of that, and perhaps most importantly, she would be eligible for vocational rehabilitation, career transition services to help her find a job and to help educate her employer about her needs, and a network of 4,000 registered mental health providers and a wellness system to help her find her new normal in civilian life.

With the income replacement benefit, veterans may also earn up to $20,000 a year before any reductions would be made, encouraging them to engage in activities meaningful to them.

It is also worth pointing out that this new plan takes survivors and dependant children into account as well. We understand that veterans need to know that their immediate family will be looked after financially.

With pension for life, in the event of a veteran's service-related death before the age of 65, the survivor and dependant children would receive the same income replacement benefit amount as the veteran would have until he or she reached the age of 65. The survivors and dependant children would then receive 70% of the benefit to which the veteran would have been entitled after 65, and this would continue for life.

Additionally, if a veteran is receiving the pain and suffering compensation at the time of her or his death, any outstanding amount would be cashed out to the survivors and dependant children. If a veteran was eligible for pain and suffering compensation but had not applied for this benefit, his or her survivors and/or dependant children may apply and receive a lump-sum amount.

While we understand that well-being is about more than dollars and cents, we also understand that financial stability is critical. That is why we are holding round tables with veterans and stakeholders across the country. That is why the six ministerial advisory groups were formed in the early days of this mandate. Throughout, we have maintained an open-door policy with veterans. We want to ensure veterans and their families fully understand the scope and impacts of changes we are introducing and to hear from them.

However, let me back up a bit.

The needs of Canada's veterans have changed significantly over the past century. Since the Pension Act was introduced in 1919, our programs and services have evolved to meet the changing needs of veterans.

By the 2000s, the Pension Act benefits were not meeting the financial security needs of many veterans. Yes, it was a monthly payment in recognition of pain and suffering but it did not always support veterans' getting back to work or to whatever gave them purpose in the years after their release from the Canadian Armed Forces. We also know that our service men and women who served in recent conflicts like Afghanistan had many different needs and that the Pension Act did not address those needs.

That is why the new veterans charter was brought in, with unanimous support of all parties, but even then it was supposed to be a living document. It was supposed to adapt to the emerging needs of our modern-day veterans and their families. Unfortunately, the previous government did not listen to those needs and it did not listen to the veterans who were asking for those changes to the new veterans charter.

In 2015, the same veteran whom we talked about earlier would have received a lump sum of $310,000. She could apply for five different income replacement benefits, each with their own eligibility criteria and application forms. Even then, instead of 90% of her pre-release salary, she would have only received 75%. She would receive $4,500 less in caregiver benefits. She would still have access to vocational rehabilitation but career transition would be a $1,000 grant to help write a resume instead of comprehensive assistance. Let us hope she did not live in one of those nine communities where a Veterans Affairs office was closed, because then she would have a hard time getting someone on the phone after the government cut front-line workers.

We were out there. I was out there, at the MFRCs in Val-Cartier, Oromocto, Winnipeg, Kingston, Nova Scotia, on base and off, talking to military members, veterans, and their families across our great land, those who were critically injured and those with varying degrees of illness and injury. We asked them what they needed with respect to financial supports and benefits and services to help them re-establish in post-military life. Every week my office and I speak to veterans, serving members, and their families. I hear some of their frustrations, their concerns, their questions. Those conversations are what drive me to continue to improve our benefits and services. It is what drives us all.

I also fully understand there are concerns about timelines, so I would like to elaborate.

There are two reasons why it will take until April 2019 to fully implement the new pension for life. The teacher in me would like to explain further.

First, we need to ensure that all Veterans Affairs Canada staff, systems, and processes are properly in place to efficiently deliver the new pension for life to the more than 74,000 veterans it will impact. Until it comes into effect, veterans will continue to receive the current benefits and services for which they are eligible.

Second, the pension for life changes need to be finalized through government legislation and, as we all know here, that takes time. That is unfortunately the one thing I have learned in my short time here on the Hill: change takes time. I know veterans and their families have been overly patient, and I thank them for their patience and I wish I could make things go faster.

Between now and the projected start date of April 1, 2019, the department will ensure that front-line staff are being trained to handle additional questions and to help guide veterans and their families through the process of transition to or applying for the pension for life. In the meantime, we are continuing to work in implementing many of the initiatives that we put forward in budget 2017, which come into effect this April.

We know that every veteran has a unique story and situation, which is why the pension for life is designed to allow veterans to decide what form of compensation works best for them and their families as they make that transition from the Canadian Armed Forces to their post-military life. The needs of one veteran and his or her family could be completely different from the veteran living on the other side of the country, or even the one living right next door. We need to ensure that they are all supported in every aspect of their lives, financially, professionally, emotionally, and physically based on their own needs and also understanding that these needs change throughout their lives.

That is why the programs, benefits, and services that veterans and their families asked for and that we are bring forward have to be nimble.

Let me give the example of a Canadian Armed Forces member who releases from the Canadian Armed Forces and a few years later realizes his knees are bad. He goes to the doctor and realizes that having jumped out of a helicopter for 20 years as a Canadian Armed Forces member, it is normal that his knees may be shot. He applies for benefits through Veterans Affairs Canada and starts receiving those benefits. A few years later he decides he would like to change his career path and comes back to Veterans Affairs Canada for the new training and education benefit so he can go back to school and start a new career. Unfortunately, some things like PTSD manifest years later, so if he presents with PTSD, he can come back and ask for more help. When he needs us, we will be there.

While the government is working through that legislative process to implement the new pension for life, the Minister of Veterans Affairs and I are already always meeting face-to-face with veterans and their families across the country to talk about the new programs, discuss some challenges and opportunities, and ensure veterans' questions and concerns are being addressed.

As I said earlier, I will always listen to veterans. I have learned so much from them over the past two years and I am so thankful for their willingness to reach out and share their stories. They, and their families, are what drive me to do better.

Veterans have been asking for years for changes and improvements in the new veterans charter and it will take time to implement those changes. In the two years since the election, we have essentially been flying the plane at the same time that we have been building it. We opened the VAC offices and hired more than 450 employees to serve our veterans and their families. Combined with over $6 billion in initiatives that we announced in budgets 2016 an 2017, we have invested an additional $3.6 billion into this flexible package of benefits and programs. Again, I wish it could be faster. We can always do better and we will continue to do better.

We need to better communicate with veterans to ensure they are aware of what they are aware of what they are eligible for and we need to truly treat the new veterans charter like a living document and adjust it to the realities of ill and injured members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families. We need to get faster at providing responses to our veterans and address the backlog.

Veterans and their families have earned Canada's respect and gratitude. Our government is giving back to those who have given so much in services to all Canadians.

I want to explain to people why I decided to run for federal office.

As I have said, I have two sons serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. I will be honest that I was frustrated and angry, like many military families. I felt as if the government was not listening, and I could either stay quiet or I could get involved. I was worried that if one of my sons became ill or injured, would Canada be there for him?

As my two sons serve in the Canadian Armed Forces, and as my husband and father were firefighters, unfortunately PTSD has a chair at my kitchen table. I wish veterans did not need our services. I wish they never became ill or injured, but that is not reality. However, I want them to know that if they do, we will be there. I will be there.

Earlier today, veterans came to advocate on behalf of their comrades in arms, right outside here. I applaud them for that, and I will be outside to listen to them shortly.

We have a lot of work to do as a government and as a nation to rebuild the trust that was broken. Many veterans and their families are still hurting, and they are frustrated. I meet with them every chance I get. I speak with them, I listen, and I read their social media posts. I have met with our incredible veterans at Ste. Anne's Hospital in my home province, and I again thank them for reaching out. Their stories and, more important, their suggestions help me in making decisions every day.

In listening to the veterans who have reached out to all of us, one thing comes out loud and clear. Veterans and their families, and Canadians are really tired of the partisanship. So am I. While we can stand here and make claims of who treated veterans better, who did what or does what to help them, how does that achieve our objective to help veterans in need? It does not. It helps politicians. It helps for content and clips for social media sites to help fuel claims. I will not do it.

I ask members of the House to please stop this. Let us use our energies and come together for our common cause. Let us work together to get the timelines down. Let us collaborate on how to make that transition easier. Let us share those best practices. Let us focus our energies on what is really important: those brave men and women outside today, those who proudly wore that Canadian flag on their shoulders like my sons do.

We have come a long way in supporting our veterans, but there is still so much to do. We need to make that transition between the Canadian Armed Forces and civilian life seamless. However, all members in the House and any veterans or family members listening today should rest assured that I will never cease in my efforts to improve their lives.

I know veterans have heard it all before. Why should they believe me now? I stand in the House and I ask all veterans and Canadians listening today to let me show them. Let me give them a reason to believe.

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her two sons who provide a great service to our country.

This debate today is about insensitive comments made to a veteran in Edmonton based on promises the Prime Minister made.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. member talks about partisanship. We had an opportunity last night, when we debated a bill I introduced, Bill C-378, for all of the House to come together and recognize the sacred obligation that we as a government and Canadian people had to our veterans, and to enshrine those principles of a military covenant and the sacred obligation into the Veterans Affairs Act through amendments I proposed. The government side, including the member with two sons, voted against Bill C-378.

Therefore, if the intent is to truly cast aside partisanship in this place, why did the member not support the amendments I proposed yesterday?

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the question. As he is a former firefighter, I thank him for his service to his community.

What the member opposite did not mention is that I met with him in my office on November 21, regarding Bill C-378. I asked him many questions regarding the bill, such as how we would measure timeliness, because what would be timely for one may not be timely for others, and how we would measure dignity and respect. I asked him about the social covenant that the U.K. uses and how it has been implemented. I asked him to work with me. If the objective is to increase timeliness and support our veterans, I asked him to work with me, to stand shoulder to shoulder, and do it together. I asked him to come back to me. I stood in this very House on December 1 to debate Bill C-378. I asked him to work with me. I never heard back.